Primary Navigation

Coffeehouse Post

Single Post Permalink

pacelvi wrote:﻿Before I start, I want you to know that I have told myself to not be um.. uncivil in responding... so hopefully I pulled that off.

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

pacelvi wrote:﻿

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

Larsenal wrote:﻿The IDF cannot stop what it did not start. The whole argument of Israeli "occupation" is, as one has put it, "a mere excuse to persuade gullible and historically ignorant Westerners to support the Arab cause against
Israel."

As long as Israel is a nation exists, there will be agression against them. Your comments fall right in line with this since you clearly don't think they have a right to exist.

Technically, they don't. 65 years ago, they didn't.

You are so right. The whole area should be given back to Turkey, the last soverign there. The Palestinian Arab colonists should be sent back to Saudi Arabia.

That would be impossible, but please don't imply that it doesn't matter. It matters quite a bit.

In the same way , wishing Israel away or approving those who want to engage in Genocide against the Hebrews is also impossible.

Er....I don't see where anybody has done that.
[/quote]

You just stated above that Israel doesn't have a right to exist. So by what means would it take to actually acheive that?

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

pacelvi wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

Larsenal wrote:
The IDF cannot establish world peace or stop international terrorism. They are a
defense force. All they can do is defend the state of Israel. Israel has not occupied Lebanon for some time, yet rockets rain down upon Israeli civilians. Israel pulled out of Gaza, yet the rockets continue. Hezbollah and Hamas will not be content
until Israel disappears. Israel pulling out of "occupied" land will not bring peace, it will only expose the fact that the real problem wasn't the occupation of specific areas of Palestine. Their grudge against Israel is their mere existance.

The Lebanese government has existed for about...er...1 year. And they do so because Syria bent to world pressure and allowed it. Syria is quite happy to also 'allow' terrorist groups to party in Lebanon so that there won't be any direct link between said
groups and Syria.

Please , every world leader knows Syria is directly linked to those groups. It's not a secret.

Which is what I said, but not is so few words.

pacelvi wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

Israel is NOT attacking Lebanon, they are attacking terrorist groups in Lebanon. The problem is, their methods are killing civilians. I'm well aware that true targets are hiding amongst regular civilians, but in this case, Israel is choosing to shoot anyway.

Israels existence is artificially propped up for some very well meaning reasons, but that does not change the fact that people who lived on that land 60 years ago had it forcefully taken away.

Yeah, we should return the land to the Ottoman Empire who stole it from the Romans/Byanthiums, who stole it from the Maccabean Israelis.

...who probably stole it from some other people. That isn't the point. Israel exists because it has backing from the US.

The assertion you made there is incomplete I believe. While it's certainly unquestionable that the US has come to be the backbone of Israel's foreign support it wasn't always that way.

Other than voting in favor of the partion in 1948, the US wasn't involved much in supporting Israel. The Zionist movement was primarily one of atheist socialist Jews. It was the Communist bloc (particularly Ch'slovakia) and the UK/France that was Israel's
lifeline in the 40s and 50s. The Soviet Union also gave limited support hoping to see where the socialists might take the country.. though the Cold War made it so that the SU support didnt last long.

It was the Suez Crisis in the 50s where Europe started to get detached from Israel and then it was in the aftermath of the 6 Days War that the US started to get more and more involved with Israel, partically because of the Cold War.

I forgot where I read this, but the SU and the US were almsot about to go to war with each other during the Yom Kippur war.

As far my opinion goes.. the US and Israel are two sides of a coin in that whoever hates Israel because it's Israel usually hates America because it's America.

it seems every political force on earth which has irrational hositily toward Israel or Jews in general has turned out to be nothing but a nightmare . Israel is the canary in the coalmine. I'm glad we stand side by side with her.

I'm glad we stand by Israelis, not Israel. It is an artificially created country that is no different than east berlin was.

As opposed to countries formed by nature? The comparasion to East Berlin is pretty good. An island of freedom.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

It exists solely due to the backing of the US. Regardless of how it worked its way through history, if we removed that backing, they would be gone within 20 years.

It exists because it exists. I'm not sure the lesson I'm supposed to be drawing from this. Are you saying you want Israel destroyed because if it lost US support it would be gone within 20 years.. or are you just stating your view as to what would happen
if the US withdrew support?

As to the significance of your point, it seems like a very unrelated tangent to this thread.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

I didn't say it was good OR bad, I'm just reminding you that 60 years ago, it didn't exist.

60 years ago Germany didn't exist. Im not sure what i'm supposed to take from that.

60 years ago, the country of Germany wasn't invented by the UN. You know exactly what I meant.

The countries of the Federal Republic of Germany and German Democratic Republic were established by the US, UK, France and the Soviet Union.

I did know what you meant and that's why I brought up Germany. because your point has no point. It doesn't matter if Israel wasnt' around 60 years ago... it's around today.

Besides,why is 60 so significant? In two years, they will have been around that long as a soverign state (a state created out of terrority that had no soverign. British Mandate Palestine , created by the League of Nations for the purpose of creating a national
Jewish homeland from some portion of it)

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

If you can't understand why that would annoy the previous occupants, then you should have a long chat with a few native americans.

Again. history is glossed over. The only people who have to vacate areas to make room for others are the Jews.

er...ok. So the Jews that lived in europe for hundreds of years can lay as much claim to the homeland of their ancestors as the Arabs who currently live there.

Again, I ask you to have a long chat with some native americans.

Ah , absurdities.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:
Arabs who were displaced in 1948 have only thier cousins to blame for basically launching a war on the same geographical area they lived. And dont you find it beyond abusive that there are still refugee camps being maintained to purpetuate the misery (intentionally?)
by the UN and Arab states? What other war-displaced people live in refugee camps for this long?

Are you blaming them for living in refugee camps?

Yes..they're responsible. They're responsible not only for the war that caused them to be displaced but also responsible for apparently keeping them in perputual misery.

Yes, no wonder people are quite upset... The UN and Arab countries inhumanely perpetuate to this very day the Refugee Camp regime for some Palestians. Heck the PA was making great automony gains in the 90s.. you think they would have closed some of the Camps
in thier own administared areas down.

Oh but then Oceania wouldn't be able to keep the tempo of perputual war, dispair and evil anti-jewish hatred otherwise.

Have to keep the Palestianians in their depraved prison until the very end.. otherwise, the Palestians can't pull out thier demand for "Right of Return to Israel Proper for Refugees".

Arafat pulled that card in the 2000 peace talks when Ehud Barak basically agreed to give the PA almost everything they wanted.

You defend these people (leadership)?

as refuges since 1948... can someone , anyone , please tell me where else in the world this happens?

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

Their elected government was not recognized for at least 30 years and the only people who offered them any kind of social programs (schools/medical) were Hamas.

Dude, there was never ever an Arab government in the lands of Palestine until 1948 when Jordan seized the West Bank , and Egypt seized Gaza.

And I hate to break this fact to you, but Israel did recognize their "government", the PLO , the framework for this recognition was the Oslo Accords which established the Palestinian Authority. The PLO then spent the rest of the 90s planning for the war they
started in 2000 which resulted in the rollback of everything that was gained.

Re: Schools/medical..
In the 90s the entire world, the US and EU in particular pumped billions into the PA.

Though I really doubt you know anything about schools and hospitals in the West Bank, so I'll leave it at that.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:
Yes Israel took advantage of the war to clean out some areas of some cities but there was no overall purge of Arabs and thus you have the so-called Israeli Arab.

Too bad the Jews in teh West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza weren't able to stay were they were after Jordan and Egypt annexed those areas. yes, annexe.

Look at any atlas from early 80s or earlier and you'll that the WB and G are politically labelled as being occupied Jordianian or Egyptian lands. Those two countires didnt' give up thier claims until the 80s.

So Jordan and Egypt are wrong for annexing the territory, but Israel is not.

﻿

Israel didn't annex the West Bank or Gaza.. so I guess israel is not wrong.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

Jordan and Egypt have much more claim to that area than the UN or Israel ever did.

No they dont. Jordan exists as it does today with the rulers it does because the Hashemite tribe agreed to back the UK in WW-II.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

I'll state it again: Israel didn't exist 60 years ago. It is a wholly invented country. And, it isn't made up of people who previously lived there and decided to form their own country. It is made up of people who decided to leave Europe and the US.

It's made up of both people.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

It is essentially a country made up of people who weren't invited and who crashed the party.

No, it's essentially about the self-determination of the Jewish people in their historic homeland, and about the blind hatred that Islam has instilled in a lot of Arabs that continues to fuel the conflict.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute your opinions to just typical lefty nonsense and nothing more repugnant than that.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:

And just like America, who couldn't have a nicer enemy to deal with than Israel. Israel didn't kill or expell every Arab from its midst.. but the Arab countries sure did with the Jews that were there. Another historical fact that goes seldom mentioned.

Because it's irrelavant. It's as if you should thank a man for not committing murder. He should not have done so in the first place.

You can come up with as many out-of-context analogies as you want but it's your argument that is irrelevent. The past cant be undone. And the fact is that it's the Arabs who did the actions that shouldn't have been done in the first place... launch the war
of 1948.

The sooner the Palestians , the Islamic regime in Iran and its proxies realize this the better.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:
I think it's long past obvious that the overall Palestinian goal is the genocide of Israel.

Obvious to you. It is the goal of the people who used to live there that they get their land back.

Any Arab who happened to be inside the 1948 borders was granted citizen in the state of israel and continued to live where they did.

What are you saying anyway? We should raze 100 years of urban development and return the baren land to people who left of thier own accord so that the genocide they were planning on doing wouldn't be impeded by their presence? Again..you defend these people?

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿
Palestinians aren't in a position to carry out genocide so using that word is purely theatrical.

The palestians only lack the capability not the will. That's the difference between thier Klingon like society and Israel's.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

pacelvi wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

This wasn't some uncontested island out in the south pacific, it was a previously occupied territory that contained....er....Syrians.

You conveniently ignore the fact that Jews have had continious prescense in the land since Roman times despite the best efforts of various parties. Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem as far back as the 1800s in modern times.

Continuous presence doesn't mean they ruled all of the land. There was ALSO continuous presence of arabs, and <gasp> europeans. If presence implies right of occupation (i.e. squatters rights) then I'd suggest that you never, ever complain about illegal immigrants
in the US.

Presence implies historical claims and culture. You deny these forces play an important role in all international politics?

where did I deny that. I'm actually aguing that that since they lived there previous to the establishment of Israel, they have both.

pacelvi wrote:

If the Palestians wanted thier state and live in peace they would have had it by now. The fact that there are Israeli Arab citizens refutes any notion that the two couldn't accomodate one another.

The fact that some slaves worked in the house and others worked in the field didn't change the fact that they were slaves.

Do you own a house? Do you own land? If I come and take your house, do you think it would make you happy if I gave you half of the house while keeping the other half?

If I told you that you should accomodate me, would that solve the problem? You obviously spend a lot of time looking in to this issue, do you not put yourself into the place of people who actually live there?

What makes you think they want world peace? They want Israel the hell out of there.

Larsenal wrote:
(It won't.) You don't have to answer this particular dumb question since I didn't directly answer yours.

Here's an interesting piece that you may like to interact with:
Why They Fight. The Arab wold has rejected Israel's right to exist before they came into posession of the West Bank and Gaza in '67. When Israel exits "occupied" lands such as Gaza and southern Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah do not start a peaceful
relationship. They use the new territory as a base to launch more attacks on Israel. These are the facts. These concessions of diplomacy have not resulted in peace.

The arab world is allowed to reject it.

Um no they aren't allowed to reject the existance of a UN Member State while also maintaining treaty obligations to the UN.

Sure they are. This is politics, and to be honest, their opinion matters much more than most of the other countries on the security council.

Whose opinions? The Arab states? Actually their opinion means very little (in the power poltics sense) in the one place where it matters.. the Security Council.

And so, the issue was thrust upon them. "We decree that there will be an Israel and it will exists....er....here".

Happens every day. Name a country that hasnt at one time had a committee set its borders.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:
They can only impede, they can not lead.

Why not?

The US has veto power.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacevli wrote:
And the US will veto their irrationality.

Oh, that's why. Even though they live there, their opinion will be vetoed by a country that is 5000 miles away. I can't understand why there are so many people who hate us.

oh yeah, now I do.

Oh "the rest of the world hates us". Read some Mark Twain.. it's hardly a novel idea.

Someone wrote him a letter that contained the following (regarding the war with spain and cuba)

Letter to Twain

...Well, what do you think of our country now? And what do you think of the figure she is cutting before the eyes of the world? For one, I am ashamed. [Extract from a long and heated letter from a Voluntary Exile, Member of the American
Colony, Paris.]

His Response

And so you are ashamed. I am trying to think out what it can have been that has produced this large attitude of mind and this fine flow of sarcasm. Apparently you are ashamed to look Europe in the face; ashamed of the American name; temporarily ashamed of your
nationality. By the light of remarks made to me by an American here in Vienna, I judge that you are ashamed because:

1. We are meddling where we have no business and no right; meddling with the private family matters of a sister nation; intruding upon her sacred right to do as she pleases with her own, unquestioned by anybody.
2. We are doing this under a sham humanitarian pretext.
3. Doing it in order to filch Cuba, the formal and distinct disclaimer in the ultimatum being very, very thin humbug, and easily detectable by you and virtuous Europe.
4. And finally you are ashamed of all this because it is new, and base, and brutal, and dishonest; and because Europe, having had no previous experience of such things, is horrified by it and can never respect us nor associate with us any more.

Brutal, base, dishonest? We? Land Thieves? Shedders of innocent blood? We? Traitors to our official word? We? Are we going to lose Europe's respect because of this new and dreadful conduct?

So I say, let the rest of the world hate us, what else is new.

Let the people who reside in places that people have fled from to come here simmer in thier resentment of the US.. the way I see the US is that it's the place where all the people of Earth have come to escape the misery of thier old worlds.. the ones that
hate us are those who stayed behind.

If the old world hates the US , it's only because they hate themselves.

Listen to the way Europeans speak when it comes defending their own heritage , it's utterly depressing. Read between the lines of their attacks on patriotic Americans. It's like they expect everyone to hate thier home countries as much as the EUtopians hate
thier own. A lot of people dont perceive this.. but I it's something I pieced together since the late 90s when I lived overseas.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:
in any case, the arab states aren't exactly rushing to punish Israel for this latest conflict other than the typical pro forma cliches. it's clear to all that Hamas and Hezbollah initiated it and I think all rational thinkers are pretty much sick of it.

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

It's also convenient that you bring up the UN when it helps you. The UN is not a government, it is a body that attempts to resolve issues, but it has no power at all. It is meant to bring unsolvable problems to hopefully unbiased parties, but do not kid yourself
that it is not political.

I only bring up the UN to highlight the committments that Arab States made. that's all. It was about the Arabs living up their word.. not anything to do with what the UN does/doesn't do.

Whatever. You'll complain about how the UN is useless and then complain further that some country ignores the UN.

Ah, so disregard my clarification on what I meant so that you can still hold onto your baseless intreptation of what I said.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿
Unless that country is the US.

Well if you care a name an instance of where the US acted in violation of some UN decree, lets hear it.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:
And of course it's political... it's sum expression of its members.. and a majority of the countries in the world have no place as equals with , say, the modern industrial/post industrial republics.

And now we know why you consider the UN useless.

Your life. In fact your entire existence happened solely because there was (and still is) a 3rd world to exploit. You produce nothing of tangible value and you consume excessively.

And still you look at the rest of the world like they aren't equals.

They're equal in human dignity, they're not equal culturally. You're the one who just now reduced my individual dignity. That is an example of Leftist Displacement. That's where you accuse the person who disagrees with you of having all the negative traits
that you exhibit.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:

And that's why the organization is corrupt and useless as a forum to make tough international decisions. That Sudan is given the same weight as Sweden is a joke. I loved when Sudan was head of some anti-genocide agency.. what's more perfect than that.

That would be the entire point. We already have plenty of organizations that consist solely of people we agree with. The UN is meant to be full of both the good and the bad.

Until we run the world, we'd better work with them. The recruitment age for the US military just got moved up to 42...care to guess why?

Because we're living in an era of Islamic revivalism and jihad. the third in history.

ScanIAm wrote:

﻿

pacelvi wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

pacelvi wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

It would be akin to China deciding that South Beach Miami is where they wish to establish a country. And then telling the the US to suck it when the US complains.

*giggle*

ScanIAm wrote:﻿

Larsenal wrote:
Edit: A year ago, you probably would have urged for Israel to pull out of Gaza, saying that sort of diplomacy would have helped the peace process. So far, so bad. Hamas has so far responded to this obvious concession very poorly.

If I steal $100 from you, and then give you $50 back, are we even?

If you come in my house to rob me and I chop off your arm in self-defense is it my fault for not letting you kill me and I should therefore cut off both my arms to make it easier for you the next time?

huh? I thought my analogy was clear, but I don't get yours.

If you (Arabs) come in my house (pre-1948 partition plan borders) and I chop off your arm in self-defense (post 1948 border , and then 1967 gains), is it my fault for not lettign you kill me (push me in the sea),and I should therefore cut off both my arms (just
give all your loses back to you as if you didn't start the wars and then prostate myself at your feet) , to make it easier for you (to push me in the sea) the next time?

It still makes no sense. It was a bad analogy at first, and it is still a bad analogy.

So you're telling me that you can't comprehend what I said ? Seems rather basic to me. Anyway, that's one reason I'm done with silly analogies. Stick to the facts.